I have played now for a while on Netgammon and I cannot shar your feelings.
I played pure running games on Netgammon as much as in real life Backgammon. I
have wrote down a large number of my own matches and replayed them with
JellyFish. Okay there have been some jokers, their have been some "bad jokers",
but all this happens even in real life Backgammon.
And finally, what do you mean with "the dice rolls adjust
to the situation on the board" ? When I dance six or seven time against a two or
three point board and my opponent enters every time against a five point board,
is this adjusting to situation? Why it is vice versa in the next game ?
With Backgammon, we are playing a game, where luck is the most important factor.
You should accept this - or you should play chess, go or something like this. I
don't beleieve there is any cheating with the dices, however, I believe, there
are a lot of people, who cannot accept, that backgammon is a dice-game more than
anything else - including sudden turnarounds.
>...from postings I have seen at
>backgammon webpages on the internet and inquiring to system operators at
>other BG servers, I was told that Netgammon is the only BG server that has
>not made their dice system public.
Would you please define what "made their dice system public" means?
I know that FIBS has a 'dicetest' command which will give you dice rolls,
but that is it, as far as I know. I doubt that ANY server will hand out
source code on their dice generator.
>This makes me conclude that if something
>as simple as a dice rolling system has to be kept secret from the people who
>are using it, they obviously there is something to hide, something that is
>definitely wrong and I urge all Netgammon members to demand that the server
>reveals their system. It is bizarre how much too often the dice rolls adjust
>to the situation on the board, and how so very rarely is a clear running
>game ever seen on this server.
You seem to give a LOT of credit to the dice roller--"dice rolls adjust
to the situation of the board". Do you really believe that?? Do you think
that the Netgammon people are that devious, that conniving, that twisted that
they build "adjustments" into their dice generator? Anyone who creates a
backgammon server with KNOWINGLY non-random dice and who doesn't warn the
users of such is dishonest. BUT, READ CAREFULLY: I don't for one nanosecond
believe that such is being done on Netgammon. However, anyone who writes
posts saying such is accusing the Netgammon people of being dishonest. Those
are strong accusations and require STRONG EVIDENCE. Evidence that can be
measured and tested with statistics. Evidence that is collected in an
You are not the first, and won't be the last poster to make strong
accusations without presenting strong evidence to back up your claims. Maybe
you will be the first to actually put some hard data (WITH THE APPROPRIATE
ANALYSIS) out here. I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.
c_ray on FIBS
What does the dicetest command actually tell you, by the way?
All of the rolls since the last server restart:
*** running dice test:
*** Rolled 1422183 times with 2 dice
1-1 39608 1-2 39632 1-3 39348 1-4 39403 1-5 39701 1-6 39756
2-1 39450 2-2 39263 2-3 39512 2-4 39287 2-5 39520 2-6 39568
3-1 39506 3-2 39288 3-3 39692 3-4 39407 3-5 39223 3-6 39435
4-1 39709 4-2 39614 4-3 39606 4-4 39592 4-5 39453 4-6 39468
5-1 39385 5-2 39387 5-3 39597 5-4 39312 5-5 39235 5-6 39593
6-1 39673 6-2 39710 6-3 39483 6-4 39484 6-5 39628 6-6 39655
unit n-sphere tests for n=1,2,3:
number: PI/4 PI/6 PI*PI/32
calculated: 0.785615 0.523878 0.308462
real value: 0.785398 0.523599 0.308425
Distribution of runs of n identical rolls:
n: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12+
1: 329192 54968 9238 1580 246 49 11 2 0 0 0 0 S:474779
2: 329559 54438 9088 1538 268 37 8 2 1 0 0 0 S:473494
3: 328897 54791 9226 1522 248 41 7 0 1 0 0 0 S:473789
4: 329159 54849 9112 1534 261 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 S:473927
5: 329971 54422 8968 1481 276 35 4 1 0 0 0 0 S:473269
6: 329789 55198 9025 1575 250 39 8 1 0 0 0 0 S:475108
S: 1976567 328666 54657 9230 1549 244 43 6 2 0 0 0 S:2844366
T: 1975254 329209 54868 9145 1524 254 42 7 1 0 0 0
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com | You are sick. It's the kind of
http://www.gammon.com/ | sick that we all like, mind you,
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | but it is sick.
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!!!!!!! That made me stop reading your post to
make a brief comment.
Luck is by no means the most important factor of backgammon. If one knows
how to play the game, luck becomes just a little hazard.
The difference between Bill Robertie and me is that he knows how to minimize
the impact of bad rolls, and take full advantage of his good rolls better
than I do. That's what makes a truly great player!
Due to the way he places his checkers on the board, he seems to be "luckier"
because he's got more rolls that do good things than I have.
OK, now after finishing reading your post, the first question that springs
to mind is "Do you work for Netgammon, or GOTO Soft?"
I personally hate the dice but like the interface. One other note.
My ELO took a 120 point dive once Lamartime started up.
I assume they want me to move over.
Also...have you noticed that most of the 1850 plus players
are not affected. That's because they sit up top..play each
other..and just swap points. Funny as hell.
Random number genration doesn't take "serious CPU crunching" at all;
that's complete BS. Besides, how many numbers would the server
generate? 20? 100? And what happens if you run out?
to answer your question first. No, I do not work for Netgammon or GOTO Software.
I'am working as a independent lawyer in Norderstedt, a small city near Hamburg
in Germany. I neither nor any people of GOTO software nor is GOTO Software my
client (however, I would really welcome them as a client).
I stay to my opinion, luck is the most important factor in backgammon. I've been
playing the game for about twelve years, some of them as more or less
professional (during my studies) and even wrote a book about the game (The
Backgammon Handbook). With this experience, I know something about the game and
therefore, I know, what I'am saying.
There are a lot of players who play better as you and me. As a result of their
skill, they have better chances and finally, this players win more games,
matches and tournaments as you and me. Never the less, these players need the
dices dices (and therefore Luck) to win their games, matches and tournaments.
Today in backgammon, as a result of Jelly Fish and Snowie, figures are very
popular in backgammon. I estimate the share of luck about 80 % and the share of
skill about 20 %. In long matches, the share of skill is getting higher and the
share of luck decreases, as luck tends to favour both players in the same way.
In internet backgammon, where most of the times short matches will be played,
luck is the most important factor.
(TheLawyer in Netgammon)
Rodrigo Andrade schrieb:
One thing I've sometimes worried about with the dice generators at various
servers, is whether they have a tendency to 'clump' rolls together in
sequence, more than would be expected in a truly 'random' set of rolls.
Almost every generator can demonstrate that over a large number of rolls,
it rolls the 'correct' number of each combination. But the pattern could
be flawed, perhaps. For example, rolling a 1 in every roll 10 times in a
row, or not rolling a 4 in 15 rolls in a row, or many doubles in sequence.
I'm sure this is a not trivial statistical analysis to decide if there is
excessive 'clumping' from a generator, (how much 'clumping' should be
expected??) but if it did exist, it could affect game results. Examples
could be: dancing MANY times against a 3,4 point board, or consistently
rolling a 1 during a bearoff.
BTW, this post has nothing to do with NetGammon, just all dice generators
Any comments on the 'clumping' concept??
Zox at GamesGrid, VOG, FIBS
Patti Beadles <pat...@netcom.com> wrote in article
That certainly seems true. It may or may not be a good thing -- figures that
give you insight into the game are good; figures that do not are bad.
> I estimate the share of luck about 80 % and the share of skill about 20 %.
While I certainly trust your experience and judgment, I do not understand
what metric you are using. Could you please explain how one would go about
measuring such a value?
I have been wondering about how to measure this for some time, but have been
unable to find a satisfactory answer. When I hear other people do it, I
presume they either know something I don't, or they are attempting to pin a
number on a concept which is inherently qualitative.
Gary Wong, Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona
first of all, I know nothing and the figures I gave were a estimation. However, I
will try to explain how I made this estimation.
When I wrote skill, I mentioned the difference in skill between two players. If
the skill of two players is absolutely even, the outcome of a game depends on
luck alone. If you don't believe me, let play Jelly Fish play against themself
and keep record of the games.
I've replayed a great number of my matches, and matches from other players, with
Jelly Fish. Here I realised that the difference i equity between the best and the
worsest reasonable move (not considering obviously nonsense plays) are in the
rarest case more than 0,2 points. The difference between winning and losing a
geme in equity is 2,0. Considering the fact, that the worse player tends to make
mistakes more often as the better player, I (just) estimated that the share of
skill in a single game is about 20%. This means, a player who makes the worse
play in many positions during a game will win, given the same dices as his more
gifted opponent, only 20% of the game.
I know by myself, I haven't given correct mathematics, I just made a (somewhat
provocative) guess. The guess is rather superficial, as a mistake in a more
complex position occur more often as in a race.
However, in the last issue of Harald Johannis Backgammon-Magazin I read, he is
working on a rating list to rank a lot of players with the help of Snowie
according to equity of their their plays, despite the finally result. I'am eager
to see the result, as we then may have some more hints to see the balance between
luck and skill. But the result of this list should not be taken as a law, as the
ranking list will (only) show the quality of play in the eyes of Snowie. I don't
own a Snowie program, therefore I cannot rate it. On the other side, as I know
from chess programs, every computer program have specific weaknesses, which are
the same in every game and, even more important in backgammon, they don't realize
the psychologic pressure during the play, they don't realise the heat of the
battle during the game on the table.
In my opinion, backgammon is a entertaining game and you can do a lot of work to
get better and improve your chances, but the outcome of a single game depends
mainly on the dices. For me, this is the reason to play backgammon. For a pure
play I prefer chess.
maybe I will buy a Sonwie program one day; I will do the work and test how good
my above mentioned guess is. I'am quite sure, I'am not far away from the Snowie
If you don't trust my number, maybe you will given another number and tell me,
how you evaluate this number.
Gary Wong schrieb:
I find "share of luck about 80% and share of skill about 20%" to be
an amusing statement, but it's meaningless on its own. Do you mean in
a one-point match? In a single money game, where the cube counts?
The FIBS rating formula estimates that an 1100-rated player (pretty
much bottom-of-the-barrel) has a 28% chance of beating a 1900-rated
player (top-notch human player.) Or in other words, skill will
triumph 72% of the time in a 1-point (cubeless) game.
Patti Beadles |
http://www.gammon.com/ | The deep end isn't a place
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | for dipping a toe.
It's certainly a sensible question to ask, and though it's relatively
simple to test a specific hypothesis ("do I dance too many times on a 3
point board?"), testing vague ones ("are the dice fair?") gets very hard
If you are interested in analysis of computer-generated pseudo-random
sequences, I suggest you browse the web, starting with:
In particular, the "clumping" concept you mention is measured by the
spectral test. Loosely speaking, a spectral test in dimension n measures
the distribution of "n samples in a row" (ie. in dimension 2 it measures
pairs, in dimension 3 it measures triples, etc.) It gets very expensive
to compute in high dimensions, but is quite useful in low (less than 10)
dimensions, because most "ordinary" random number generators tend to get
passable (but not spectacularly good) results in these dimensions. That
makes it a simple test for easily weeding out bad generators.
A more strenuous theoretical requirement is for a generator to be
"k-distributed" (see Knuth's _The Art of Computer Programming_) -- a
sequence is 1-distributed if every number it generates occurs equally
often; 2-distributed if every _pair_ of numbers occurs equally often;
etc. In a backgammon context, where each roll is considered a
single "number", 1-distribution would mean that all 36 rolls occurred
equally often and 2-distribution would mean all 1296 _pairs_ of rolls
occurred equally often. The series "11 12 13 ... 65 66 11 12 13..."
is obviously 1-distributed, but not 2-distributed. (Technically we
should say _k-distributed to n-bit accuracy_, where n-bit accuracy
means the output is in the range 0..(2^n)-1. You can generally
achieve higher k-distribution by sacrificing accuracy, and vice
versa.) k-distribution becomes overwhelmingly expensive to test
for large k and n (to test k-distribution to n-bit accuracy, you'd
need to test at least 2^(kn) numbers) so is generally shown theoretically
without performing actual measurements (as opposed to the spectral
test). "Ordinary" random number generators generally cannot claim
any better than 1-distribution.
The best generator I know of (this is my favourite, so sorry if I keep
plugging it :-) is the Mersenne Twister (look for a description on the
web at http://www.math.keio.ac.jp/~matumoto/emt.html) which, if you
used it to generate numbers in the range 1..36 for use as backgammon
dice, would be 3115-distributed -- ie. there is no biased "clumping"
whatsoever for any sequence shorter than 3116 rolls!
Getting back to backgammon: accusations of biased dice are very common
(for some reason the dice are always biased AGAINST the complainer --
nobody ever posts to r.g.b. saying that they just beat Jellyfish in a
long match which they clearly deserved to lose, or that the dice on
Netgammon clearly favour them), but detailed analyses are rare. A
couple of good examples:
Stephen Turner performs a chi-squared test of the "matrix" output of
10,000,000 FIBS rolls at http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=230890310
and finds no evidence of bias. This is loosely equivalent to showing the
FIBS dice pass the spectral test in dimension 2. It also shows no
signs of 2-undistribution (you can't ever prove k-distribution just by
measuring random samples, but if a sequence was badly k-undistributed,
then you could find evidence of that).
Tom Keith gives a summary of 3,000,000 rolls generated by Motif at
http://www.bkgm.com/motif/stats.html and breaks them down by player
and position (overall, entering from the bar, and in races).
The reason is because they knew what their opponents
were going to get on their next roll. Did Netgammon publish
the bug and how they were able to do this? That's because
the dice are pre-programmed rolls !!!!!!!! Wake-up!!!!!!!
It's a great chat room with cool interface. Backgammon?
Give me a break. After my membership expires 1/99 I will
be out of there. Plus $4 a month increase. Damn....I may
write my own.
I am the Michael that posted my feelings about Netgammon's Dice. After
reading the comments of everyone who responded I must definitely say I
learned some things about myself (thanks Chuck). I am a rather naive person
with suspicions that I can not back up with any evidence. And, yes, I was
frustrated with how the dice were coming my way. But of all of you who did
answer, have you ever played at Netgammon? Two of you I do know from
Netgammon, TheLawyer and Jeff. Please go there and play somebody so you san
SEE what I mean. In my posting I never said that the dice were crooked nor
did I accuse Netgammon of doing something like giving bad dice to some
players and good to others. All I am saying is that there is something wrong
with their dice system, that is my opinion only, and seeing is believing, so
go there and see and you will believe. It would not be the first time
something wrong has been discovered about Netgammon. Not too long ago there
were three players all with elos of plus 2300 and 2400 with under 400 exp
who managed to find a way to see the dice rolls before they got them and
thus were able to move their checkers accordingly to win and get to such
inflated elos. Even so they did lose a few games. I won one of those games
against one of them. I only thought that this was a place that people come
to exchange "opinions" about backgammon related subjects. Sort of like as
Geert Verkade said in his posting (re-Skepticism) bar-talk. I thank all of
you for your responses and opinions.
Thank you Martin, Patti, Vince, Chuck. Jeff, Gregg, Geert and especially
I assume that I am victim of the magic-magnifying-mind principle, on this
clumping idea... All of the games when the different rolls are spread out,
I play on thinking everything is hunky dory. But when I can't roll a 4 for
6 rolls, I think the dice are weird. The phrase I often quote, and need to
remember is: 'Random <> Evenly Distributed'. Even in a random series, you
expect to see the same rolls in 'groups' or 'clumps' from time to time.
Zox at GamesGrid, VOG, FIBS
Gary Wong <ga...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote in article
> > Any comments on the 'clumping' concept??
> It's certainly a sensible question to ask, and though it's relatively
> simple to test a specific hypothesis ("do I dance too many times on a 3
> point board?"), testing vague ones ("are the dice fair?") gets very hard
> very fast.
> If you are interested in analysis of computer-generated pseudo-random
> sequences, I suggest you browse the web, starting with:
> In particular, the "clumping" concept you mention is measured by the
> spectral test.
> Gary Wong, Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona
> ga...@cs.arizona.edu http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~gary/
If you really want a solid dose of dice
frustration - go play on the MS Zone for a
few days. I was fortunate enough this evening
to be the recipient of 5 rolls in a row that
were 51. And if you are a fan of multiple
doublets in a row, this is the place. I have
had as many as 4 or 5 in a row both in my
favor and against me. I have even seen, much
to my wondering eyes, 12 and 14 sets of doublets
appear in a single game. I grant you, the server
does have its good moments, but overall, I have
had games come my way and taken away by
inordinately ill distributed dice.
And folks - No I do not have any evidence because
the Zone is still in the dark ages. No way to save
games/matches to collect any evidence. And No I am
not going to write down all the rolls in the games
I play on the Zone. Just a passing observation.
Lastly, for the "Play Elsewhere" folks, I do! I play
on FIBS. Have some friends who play the game and they
do not have the patience to get onto FIBS, so the Zone
is their choice. But a really frustrating one!
Have a Fun Day,
> After playing for sometime now at Netgammon I have gathered a collection of
> words to describe the dice rolls I have seen at this ridiculous server. And
> of all these words, I can still not come up with the real word for obviously
> there is no word that can really say it. They are : incredible, uncanny,
> mind-boggling, unbelievable. astounding, astonishing, etc. etc. I have saved
> the dice rolls from many of my own matches and others that I have watched.
> When I have inquired about how their dice system works, I was told by one of
> the main system operators that the dice rolls come from the program I
> downloaded and installed on my computer. And from postings I have seen at
> backgammon webpages on the internet and inquiring to system operators at
> other BG servers, I was told that Netgammon is the only BG server that has
> not made their dice system public. This makes me conclude that if something
> as simple as a dice rolling system has to be kept secret from the people who
> are using it, they obviously there is something to hide, something that is
> definitely wrong and I urge all Netgammon members to demand that the server
> reveals their system. It is bizarre how much too often the dice rolls adjust
> to the situation on the board, and how so very rarely is a clear running
FIBS also has (or used to have at any rate) the 'matrix' command
which gives the distribution of all sets of 2 rolls - so you can
look up how many times 3-4 was followed by 2-2 if you want to.
"Apparently the creator of WinFibs is back in business, so to speak and
thank God for that! The good thing about this beta version is that
there is no time limit! Go to:
Zox at GamesGrid, VOG, FIBS
Casual_Observer <divdesm...@home.com> wrote in article
Zox at GamesGrid, VOG, FIBS
Casual_Observer <divdesm...@home.com> wrote in article
> If you really want a solid dose of dice
> frustration - go play on the MS Zone for a
> few days. I grant you, the server
> does have its good moments, but overall, I have
> had games come my way and taken away by
> inordinately ill distributed dice.
> And folks - No I do not have any evidence because
> the Zone is still in the dark ages. No way to save
> games/matches to collect any evidence.
Its been a while since I played on the zone but for a long while I was
playing in their progressive tourney and in the ladder rooms because,,,,
well because it was fun to win all the time (*chuckle*). I can confirm your
experience. The dice are very very "un-natural" and unlike any server I have
played. The dice were not biased against me or anyone else. You could be hit
by a long string of doublets or have them for yourself. The sets of doublets
there are amazing, and I do(did) have proof of sorts(see below). It was so
bad that when I played there I conciously raised my doubling point in
positions with a strong race content. I didn't take cubes more often but I
did wait to double in races longer than normal. I am not an expert but I
play well enough to know what I was doing and I felt fully justified in my
feeling. I am not a paranoid nut either. I have never said that I think dice
cheat or are bad anywhere else. I felt silly for thinking so but was
convinced I was correct so I set out to test my theory....
>And folks - No I do not have any evidence ....
I watched over 50 matches in the tournies and in the rooms. And recorded the
dice rolls as: 1)contact doubles 2)contact non-doubles 3)non-contact
doubles and 4)non-contact non-doubles for each roll of the match. There were
5,000+ dice rolls. Unfortunately the file i used to track got killed in a
hard-drive crash :(. As it stood after 5000 rolls though doubles appeared
~22 % (a little better than 1 in 5) and post contact the percentage was
somewhere very near 25%... somewhere in the 23.8-24.3 range. I know I can
hear it now. I am making it up right? But I am not. I have never posted
crazy dice fears before and in fact have argued that jellyfish doesn't cheat
and for people to use the manual dice and shut-up about it. I had never
posted the results (at the time I hadn't discovered r.g.b) and then I lost
the official numbers :(. I wouldn't post now except for the fact that
someelse mentioned the subject. Maybe I shouldn't even mention it anyway
since I lost the data but ,,, oh well,,, live and learn.
Due to a recent article about having proof to back up claims I am a bit
reluctant to post this. And I am sure that in the minds of some I am forever
tagged as another paranoid with bad dice phobia. But if say Kit Woolsey(i
use Kit because he seems to be considered by most as a respected player and
author) posted an article and said something like "GamesGrid dice are really
bad.I had the proof but lost it :(" then people would listen. I am not
claiming to be as knowledgable or respected as Mr. Woolsey but just use that
as a point that it is possible for something like that to happen and still
be believed. Anyway, I regret having lost the info as I really wanted to
post it on my homepage someday and I hope that people will listen to this
one case of a bad server(as I wrote before the Zone players have a very low
skill level on average also).
Okay,,,, go at it ,,, have fun with me,,, but be gentle please ,,, lol
Vince Mounts (a.k.a einniv)
Home Page URL: http://vmounts.home.mindspring.com
Vince, do you think you could have made a mistake in your data taking
or calculation? What is the chance that you made a mistake? Some of us
might like to go through your data and analysis to verify that what you
found was statistically significant. But all we have is your memory. Has
your memory ever been in error? Did you ask yourself any of these questions?
>But if say Kit Woolsey(i
>use Kit because he seems to be considered by most as a respected player and
>author) posted an article and said something like "GamesGrid dice are really
>bad.I had the proof but lost it :(" then people would listen. I am not
>claiming to be as knowledgable or respected as Mr. Woolsey but just use that
>as a point that it is possible for something like that to happen and still
I'd be very surprised if Kit would even seriously consider making such
a post (assuming he had the hypothetical experience you describe). And, for
many reasons. What you descibe is unfortunately all too common. Person A
is an authority. Therefore s/he need not present evidence nor logic. Merely
his/her pontification is sufficient. I've read A LOT of Kit's writing. I
don't remember him ever taking this authoritarian attitude.
>Anyway, I regret having lost the info as I really wanted to
>post it on my homepage someday and I hope that people will listen to this
>one case of a bad server(as I wrote before the Zone players have a very low
>skill level on average also).
Well, Vince, couldn't you repeat the experiment? That seems to me to
be the responsible action. Wouldn't your conscience go easier on you if
I was going to post the probabilities of each of those events happening,
but I guess a bunch of numbers is roughly as interesting to read as the
phone book. Instead, here's what someone who played a few games every
night with fair dice might typically observe (for themselves or for their
2 identical rolls in a row: a couple of times a game
3 identical rolls in a row: once a night
4 identical rolls in a row: a couple of times a month
5 identical rolls in a row: once a year
6 identical rolls in a row: a few times in your life
7 identical rolls in a row: most of us will never see it
(Rolling 51 then 15 counts as 2 identical rolls in a row.)
2 doubles in a row: a couple of times a game
3 doubles in a row: a couple of times a night
4 doubles in a row: a couple of times a week
5 doubles in a row: once or twice a month
6 doubles in a row: a few times a year
7 doubles in a row: once every couple of years
8 doubles in a row: a few times in your life
9 doubles in a row: once in your life
10 doubles in a row: most of us will never see it
(Rolling 44 then 22 counts as 2 doubles as a row.)
The number of doubles rolled in a game depends so strongly on the
distribution of lengths of game that they can't really be estimated
by a simple model (it depends on the players, anyway -- two very pure
and positional players would expect to roll many more doubles per game
than two "run and play safe"rs).
FIBS generates roughly a million dice rolls a week. This is probably
as many dice rolls as a casual player would make in ten years! They're
being generated so fast that we would expect several FIBS players a
week to see 5 identical rolls in a row (just like the 5 51's you got
on the Game Zone). Every couple of weeks, expect somebody to be given 6
identical rolls in a row. 4 doubles in a row happens several times an
hour, and 5 doubles in a row many times a day.
If EVERYBODY who rolled something 5 times in a row (like you did)
posted about it on r.g.b., then by the time you add all the FIBS and
Yahoo and Game Zone and Games Grid and Netgammon players out there
(not to mention those playing against their own computer, and those
playing real games with real dice), then we would be FLOODED with
several posts per day complaining about "inordinately ill distributed
dice"! Yes, your experience was uncommon (most players would only see
that happen to them about once a year); but there are so many people
out there that I am sure it happens to several people every day.
Since your sample was self-selected, I don't regard it as any evidence
that the Game Zone dice are unfair.
My first observation is that you are absolutely right! If
everyone who had a distorted dice experience in a BG game
everywhere were to post here - this board would be devoid
of meaningful dialog.
I wish to point out, however, that I stated that I had
no evidence that the dice were always skewed, distorted or "unfair"
and that my statement was a "passing observation" of incident(s)
in response to the "bad dice" thread that already been started.
I am sorry that you feel that this post is more inappropriate and
dangerous to the health of the r.g.b dialog than the voluminous and
sometimes excessively verbose "Something Cheats" or "Someone is a Dropper"
threads I have seen continuously here.
I never stated that anything cheats - BTW.
I have learned from your and many other's comments on doubling
decisions and checker plays on this board. IMO more of that and
less of the various whining and bitching would be a significant
I appreciate your position and respect your opinion on this issue!
Further, thanks for the estimates of the occurance of these
events in the vernacular!
Have a Happy Day,
I probably went a bit overboard in claiming what a disaster it would be
if everybody posted about unusual dice rolls here. What I meant is that
when I read about the dice rolls you came across on the Game Zone, I
wondered exactly how unlikely it would be to experience something like
this, and also how frequently it would arise on backgammon servers.
I certainly didn't mean to imply your article was inappropriate or
dangerous -- on the contrary, I'm glad you posted it, thank you!
Thanks for the clarification. If I understand you correctly then, you
are estimating that in a single (cubeless?) game, the better of two
players might expect to start with an advantage of 20% of the value of
the game, because the weaker player is likely to make more mistakes
which contribute this much to the result of the game.
If the players are exactly equal in skill, then I presume you would
measure the outcome of that game as being 100% luck and 0% skill
(since neither player has any advantage whatsoever over the other); in
the other extreme, if a world class player played a raw beginner it
might be classed as 90% or more skill because the better player has an
Similarly, I presume that if the two players in your 20% example were
to play a longer match, then the long match would "include" over 20%
skill, because the accumulated mistakes the weaker player makes over
the course of the match add up to a significant advantage?
If you agree with all the above, then yes I do trust your estimation
(I would also claim that you are measuring the _players_ rather than
the _game_, but perhaps that's starting to be fussy).
> If you don't trust my number, maybe you will given another number and
> tell me, how you evaluate this number.
I do trust your number, it's just that at first I wasn't sure what it